301. In the name of God: the Saudi rape victim's tale

Comment #91717 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 29, 2007 at 4:25 am

I AGW doesn't do it for you, this should. Stop funding this odious criminal gang by using less energy.

Turn off and unplug appliances at night.
Heat with renewable wood.
Get a smaller car or use public transport.
Pester your representative to endorse green solutions.
Install small scale solar or wind power (if you can afford it).
Buy locally grown, organically produced goods.

Starve this beast of revenue, so it can't call the shots.

302. My life under a fatwa

Comment #91711 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 29, 2007 at 3:21 am

52. Comment #91545 by Bonzai on November 28, 2007 at 2:25 pm

Hi Bonzai. The 5% current EU muslim population, 50% by 2050 in perhaps one member state and current (worst case scenario) 50% support for Sharia law equation, make it's (sharia) implementation in the EU functionally impossible. This simply is the reality. This does not mean I endorse Sharia law, or think we should fling open the borders to all comers, I just insist on the discussion being rooted in reality. As was your excellent post, I found almost nothing to disagree with and much that I can heartily endorse.

I choose to a introduce what I consider a fairly reasonable note of reality, and reject the hysteria where I see it because there is a lot of that going on at the moment.

For example, on the Teddy Bear thread people are suggesting that the UK use the SAS to rescue this woman, or bomb from the air or simply invade. It seems incredible (to me at least), that the reaction to one clear cut and obvious injustice is to compound it by immediately killing several uninvolved parties simply going about their business. The unspoken underlying principle is a nationalist one, specifically, "we are worth more than them". This I reject absolutely.

There are many posters here, people who are supposed to be rational that really think this is a good idea. As much as I despise what has happened there and the plethora of horrible issues highlighted in the last several weeks, it is not going to be resolved by unilateral military action.

If you want more robust action, the only choice it seems to me is for western countries to form a core, similar in concept to the EU, where everyone is subject to the same rules (including americans) and once that body represents 50% of the planets people, you have some legitimacy to start taking aggressive action when endorsed by an agreed process.

More ideally though, the same body should institute base line human rights, and rather than military action simply charge the relevant parties, and those that aid and abet them and arrest them when they go abroad. Donald Rumsfeld may yet fall prey to this, and Pinochet had a similarly close call. We already have bits and pieces of this in place, we just need to bed it down in an agreed framework endorsed by the representatives of more than 50% of the planets people. Of course this is less satisfying, by orders of magnitude, than rushing in gung ho and rescuing people ala Rambo. However, while sitting in court at the trial of your daughters rapist and murderer waiting for justice to be served, is similarly frustrating, I think we can agree it's a vast improvement on a lynch mob.

Law people. Rule of Law. Fairly applied to everyone. Focused targeted violence only as a last resort, with broad agreement and established processes.

Anything else is simply gangsterism and dangerous to all of us, but especially to tens of millions of perfectly innocent people in the middle east.

303. Dutch lawmaker planning film criticizing the Quran

Comment #91668 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 28, 2007 at 11:49 pm

19. Comment #91532 by phil rimmer on November 28, 2007 at 2:02 pm

Muslims must become inured to insult, denigration and blasphemy being heaped on their religion.

Nicely put. But we must be clear, the insult is to Islam and not Muslims. We must police the distinction if our point is not to be lost.

Absolutely. My position on this is completely clear. I don't see any other choice at this point, a significant minority of muslim wack jobs are putting their own "people", and the rest of us at terrific risk.

Every teddy bear, jailed for being raped and stoned for adultery story is fodder to a belligerent and resurgent western fascism that wants to do much more than just tell you that the Quran is cover to cover nonsense.

304. Turkey probes atheist's 'God' book

Comment #91538 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 28, 2007 at 2:17 pm

57. Comment #91533 by clunkclickeverytrip on November 28, 2007 at 2:02 pm
One sad fact in the article is that only 6,000 copies of TGD have been sold in Turkey (Pop. 63 million) - after someone going to all that trouble to translate it for them and all.

Maybe sales will pick up now?

305. Dutch lawmaker planning film criticizing the Quran

Comment #91517 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 28, 2007 at 1:31 pm

13. Comment #91504 by Unknown on November 28, 2007 at 1:17 pm
I wouldnt be happy with this guy, if I were you guys.

This may mean local trouble, but it is the right reaction. Muslims must become inured to insult, denigration and blasphemy being heaped on their religion.

They need to get used to it, and simply shrug their shoulders and move on, like the Christians do. I utterly reject the right of anyone to murder, maim or physically abuse another human being for imaginary crimes against their pet fairy story.

The only thing that will acheive that is wall to wall eye popping insult. Muslims need to grow a thicker skin, the sooner the better.

306. Pupil defends teacher in Muhammad teddy furore

Comment #91508 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 28, 2007 at 1:23 pm

1. Comment #91501 by Arcturus on November 28, 2007 at 1:15 pm
Aren't all the Mohammeds in the world an insult to the "prophet"?

This is utter nonsense ... the human race at it's worst.

Basically every photograph, sculpture or painting of anyone (or thing) called Mohammed is an insult. What utter nonsense. I have just rechristined my Johnny mohammed. What now?

307. My life under a fatwa

Comment #91375 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 28, 2007 at 7:26 am

Still, the point remains that you do not need to be in control, or in majority, to be in power.

This is a good point, but as we often see, small parties that get too greedy simply collapse the coalition they have joined. As a result of that dynamic, I don't see Sharia law being introduced anywhere based on the machinations of some minority party.

Also it's not just Turkey that has Muslim majorities without resorting to Sharia.

It seems self evident to me that "home grown" fascism is a greater risk and threat to us all, due to their electability, than islamic fascism. Thus all this obsessing about an imminent, medium term or distant islamic takeover seems terribly misplaced.

I think both fascist regimes and radical muslim ones are incredibly unlikely, thus there is little value in worrying about them when we have real and immediate issues such as global warming, inadequate global governance and islamic terrorism to deal with.

Filling peoples heads with speculative "what if" scenarios of cultural collapse in the 22nd century simply strikes me as a waste of valuble time and energy.

308. My life under a fatwa

Comment #91346 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 28, 2007 at 5:28 am

Odious characters such as George Galloway can get themselves elected. It's wishful thinking to imagine that you don't have problems until you get to 45%.

I never said or meant that. We will continue to have problems, and terrorism. Brace yourself. However it is extremely unlikely that an Islamic party will ever be elected in an EU member state, or that muslims will simply seize power. For the reasons I've clearly articulated. It is worth repeating that culturally specific fascists will be in power in various EU states, long before muslims.

I really don't think Turkey is a shining example for our future. Do you?

Again, you seem to be reading stuff I'm not writing. My point was not to hold Turkey up as a beacon of sanity, merely to point out (reasonably I thought) that if Turkey doesn't have Sharia law with almost 100% of muslims, how likely is it to become legal in EU countries even in the next 150 years?

The case for a muslim takeover has to be made. Either through sheer numbers and violence, or through fewer numbers through the electorate. Yet, there is no polity of muslims in any EU member state where 100% of them support Sharia law, the highest numbers are perhaps 50%. There are also no countries in the EU that will have 50% muslim populations before 2050, and this still only means 25% for sharia law, which pushes the deadline for the introduction of sharia law to functional infinity.

These are akward facts which must be integrated into the equation, and atheists should know better than to credulously swallow the tripe being fed them by the right.

309. My life under a fatwa

Comment #91334 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 28, 2007 at 4:25 am

38. Comment #91330 by hungarianelephant on November 28, 2007 at 4:06 am
The issue of demographics is real, but there is a fairly simple solution, at least insofar as it consists of Islam treating women as breeding machines.

No the issue is hopelessly overblown. Muslims represent about 5% of the EU population, and will be over 50% nowhere in the EU before 2050. It is far likelier that homegrown fascists will be elected into power in EU member states as an ironic reaction to the perceived threat of Islam, than that a demonised and despised minority will magically "seize power". Without either sheer physical numbers, or electoral power how is this to happen exactly? Magic is the only answer.

Even the Nazis had to win an election with a sizeable chunk of the population onside (45% I think?) before they could really get their program underway.

We don't even see Sharia law in Turkey, almost 100% muslim!!! Nah, it's pure scare mongering to grease the slide to mass slaughter. Or maybe just hysteria, don't want to get too paranoid:-)

310. Islam and the modern world don't mix

Comment #91331 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 28, 2007 at 4:14 am

The damage that is being inflicted daily on the image of Islam doesn't come from people like me, who are constantly accused of Islamophobia, but practices such as forced marriage, honour killings and heated denunciations of "Western" values. I can't think of any secular country where a rape victim or a well-meaning British teacher would find themselves threatened with flogging

The way forward is to relentlessly highlight the lunacy, and insist the representatives of Islam explain it. They should not be able to appear in public with being challenged on these issues.

311. My life under a fatwa

Comment #91316 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 28, 2007 at 2:54 am

'ello there; i'm new so i was just a-wondering if briancoughlanworldcitizen (on this site) =
TheModestAgnostic (on YouTube)

He does indeed.

312. Golden Compass author hits back

Comment #91304 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 28, 2007 at 2:20 am

27. Comment #91250 by Frankus1122 on November 27, 2007 at 7:08 pm

*spoilers!!!*

Highlight the fact that the book deals in metaphysics. To call a book atheist, when Lyra actually journeys at one point to hell to rescue a friend, and meets "God" (as understood by the thinly disguised catholic church), is absurd.

Get a copy and find sections that highlight this, and read them to the parents. It's a brilliantly written piece of work.

Most of your parents will be protestant, they probably consider the catholic church suspect. So focus on the idea of a child exposing metaphysical fraud in a parallel world where the reformation never happened, and thus discovering the truth behind the universe.

Steer clear of mentioning the catholic church by name though, rather refer to a monolithic, suffocating and intrusive religious hierarchy. They'll get the idea.

The movie can easily be sold as a call to religious freedom from the religious perspective. From ours, the whole idea of theism is undermined if the religious understanding of God might merely be the product of relentless pan generational propaganda. Which of course it is!!! Just without the metaphysics.

313. My life under a fatwa

Comment #91298 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 28, 2007 at 2:07 am

The objections raised to my video are familiar. So here is something I prepared earlier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i0lRffYTStw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Coi14j5q-vU

314. My life under a fatwa

Comment #91281 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 28, 2007 at 12:12 am

Can anyone tell me why the predictions are preposterous? AC Grayling is similarly dismissive in Against All Gods but he doesn't explain why and I can't work it out. Does anyone have any thoughts on why these writers dismiss the demographic arguements?

Something I prepared earlier.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3tSeonq9lVM

315. 'Muhammad' teddy teacher arrested

Comment #91038 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 27, 2007 at 3:40 am

44. Comment #90945 by dhudson0001 on November 26, 2007 at 6:53 pm
Don't do it Limey, we would hate to lose ya :)

Seriously though, for me, its times like these that I get the same damn familiar feeling- invariably accompanied by a thought that i have to put effort into pushing away, because I really, DONT believe it, but I can't help but ponder the idea that this is so asinine that it can't be REAL.

Speechless myself. This woman heads off to people, basically on the bones of their arse to help them, and this is what she gets in return? Sometimes I despair:-(

316. Bankrolling Ali's Asylum

Comment #91027 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 27, 2007 at 2:48 am

44. Comment #90952 by agg on November 26, 2007 at 7:20 pm
I've been reading and re-reading the article to make sure that I am not missing the context but, for the life of me, I can't seem to see how Sam's comment is even the slightest bit negative or offensive to atheists (or gives ammunition to the Christian right).

Likewise, on the contrary the goad seems to go the other way. Sam currently thinks Atheists are more moral than theists, but could with sufficient response from the theist community, be convinced otherwise. This puts the onus on them to match the atheist donations, we just need to keep up. It's a subtle and humourous nudge in a direction he thinks important. I found it perfectly legitimate.

Mind you, I still think that what we really ought to be doing is sticking it to moderate Islam. If anyone "owns" this problem end to end, surely it is them?

Don't believe in killing people in the name of your faith? Claim it does harm to islam? Here is your chance to undo some of the damage.

This issue and the ease and simplicity of understanding the problem, is a brilliant way to put every and any Islamic apologist immediately on the back foot. Lets use it!

317. Sunday School for Atheists

Comment #90762 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 26, 2007 at 9:38 am

What we need is an online place for kids of atheist parents to get together. My daughter is quite comfortable about her utter lack of god belief, but we live in Sweden where its more the norm. Tricky for the American bible belters

318. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89982 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 22, 2007 at 9:41 am

Oh - and the one who came down as a man, is god, but was concerned he had forsaken himself towards the end. He was then tortured to death to please himself. It all goes back to a talking snake and a poisonous fruit that wasn't poisonous, apparently.

I hope this clarifies matters for our readership out there.

It is scary how exactly like Dougal you sound. Cool though.

319. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89976 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 22, 2007 at 9:14 am

Explain how either to destroy or not to destroy makes one any less 'perfect' than the other.

OK. God created his choosen people. Then threatened to kill them all (lets just skip over Noah completely for a moment), and was talked out of it by Moses.

The biblical record is explicit. God took new information in and changed it's mind. Thus not all knowing, if words are to continue to have their standard meaning at any rate.

Leaving aside evidence, do you consider your particular brand of God simultaneously omni-scient, benevolent and potent?

320. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89968 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 22, 2007 at 8:39 am

Obviously Oxford or Webster or whoever wrote your dictionary just took a wild stab at defining perfect.

Yes. Obviously. Those crazy kids.

I'm sensing a bit of the princess bride syndrome.

"I don't think that word means what you think it means".

Or in the immortal words of James T. Kirk. "Why would God need a spaceship?"

321. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89967 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 22, 2007 at 8:34 am

Explain to me how the most powerful being with unlimited ability COULDN'T change his mind.

Seriously, are you being serious?

C'mon. Save the bluster.

If you know everything in advance, whats to change? If you know the road ahead is blocked, are you going to drive right up to the roadblock and only then turn around?

By the standard concept of God, it is aware of everything. Why would it need to change it's mind?

322. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89962 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 22, 2007 at 8:29 am

235. Comment #89948 by Ruht on November 22, 2007 at 8:14 am

If you decided to eat chocolate ice cream, but then decided to eat vanilla, are you then saying that one of those decisions was less "perfect" than the other?

In some sense, that may well be the case. However, its a bad example because in principle, nothing is at stake, or what is at stake is so imperceptible as to be functionally irrelevant.

From a human perspective such a decision appears random if you are unaware of your own motivation. God however, by the typical theistic definition is completely aware of his own, and everyone elses, motivations. If you prefer one icecream over the other, then clearly the decision to eat the icecream you prefer is a more perfect decision. Still, silly example.

Instead check out Exodus 32:7-14. Here Moses talks God around. God has a particular plan of action, but takes Moses input into account and "changes his mind". In a very clear sense the decision to not destroy Gods choosen people was superior to destroying them. So God is clearly not perfect, not even in a Biblical context.

And define "perfect."
No you define it. It's your God we are shooting down, not mine.

323. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89942 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 22, 2007 at 8:08 am

Not if he changed his mind from doing one thing perfectly to doing something else perfectly.

Doing something "perfectly" is quite different from being "perfect".

Explain to me, how can a perfect being, with absolute foresight for the whole span of eternity "change their mind"?

What prompts the change? Digestion? Mood? Poor planning? New information? Random Quantum Effects?

Surely you see the problem now?

324. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89925 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 22, 2007 at 6:56 am

248. Comment #89900 by CJ22 on November 22, 2007 at 4:56 am
The self-righteous moral bullying that has gone on in this thread, aided, to my horror, by Josh, is frankly sickening. We're all supposed to be skeptical thinkers for goodness sake.

I've been banging the same drum consistently since the thread began, despite having no hesitation myself in immediately donating.

However, Josh was primarily reacting to some pretty vile and pointless comments about Ayaan, and I have to agree with his outrage on that front.

It is one thing to say, "I am not convinced of the case.", it is quite another to spew insulting and hateful slurs against a person. The former should be energetically defended, and the latter ideally ignored.

As people lost their heads and a total flame war ensued, the first casualty was the right to question and be skeptical, in a very real sense some people felt a sacred trust had been violated by the attacks on Ayaan, and eventually by even suggesting that this was a case that had to be made pretty carefully before people started flinging money.

I remain convinced that the level of vitriol and mutual recrimination was partly fueled by hormones, throw a desirable and intelligent female into the mix and anything can happen. Call me sexist all you like, but an objective assessment of this melee will turn something up on that front.

It's all been pretty interesting. Atheists are clearly just as prone to mob behaviour and group think as any theist. Food for thought:-)

325. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89871 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 22, 2007 at 2:36 am

Looks like we scared him off! Damn! We need theists to prevent the infighting!!

326. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89846 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 22, 2007 at 12:00 am

Um, it wouldn't, if God's plans included me asking.
This doesn't strike you as God pulling your chain? What about the people it didn't "program" to ask?

And it wouldn't if God had the ability to change and adjust the future, also.

Why would an all powerful, all knowing erm ... "God" need to change their plans? By definition it knows everything, and it's all been plotted out in detail according to most major cults. Perhaps you belong to some fringe group?

Which I'm sure he does.
How specifically do you know that?

327. Why Science Will Triumph Only When Theory Becomes Law

Comment #89839 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 21, 2007 at 10:56 pm

Again, God bless, and have a wonderful Thanksgiving.

Ah but which God "Ruth", and if he knows the future, why would your asking him (or her (or it)) to "bless" make ... them ... derange all the planning since creation to accomodate your request?

Hmmmm?

328. The Scientists Speak

Comment #89837 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 21, 2007 at 9:49 pm

21. Comment #89626 by arogop on November 21, 2007 at 9:29 am

We have been forcefed so mush BS from both sides on this issue that it is very hard to determine where the truth lies.

I'm sorry to be blunt, but this is simply nonsense. Even a passing aquaintance with the subject over the last several years demonstrates an overwhelming consensus, which has built consistently. Even if this where not true, there are several independently compelling reasons to quickly move the US down the same road as the EU as regards energy efficiency.

If you are still a "skeptic", it isn't for rational reasons. You must try and detach yourself from whatever noxious ideology is blinding you.

The only developed country in the world that has "doubts" (other than the vast majority of it's scientific community) is the US. This is purely and simply cultural, it has nothing to do with science, except to use the tentative and provisional nature of all science, as a tool to confuse and obfuscate.

The prevarication on this subject should be punished politically for decades, even perhaps with the utter destruction of the republican party. Ah well, one can dream:-)

We may have much in common, but you'll find on the subject of AGW I tend to side uncompromisingly with the overwhelming scientific consensus, and I get testy at the presentation of a few cherry picked dissenting voices as an "opposing" view. Especially by non climatologists. The only sensible position for a non expert in a complex world is to determine if a consensus exists among the experts, and take their lead from them. The level of confidence in a given area, being related to the level of consensus.

Still, there is no sense in being a total ass about the thing. Judge Jones was a republican, and look how that worked out:-) My take is that you (and he) are probably in the wrong party, unfortunately the US system tends to corral people into two diverse, massive opposing camps. You chaps might think about proportional representation to fix that.

329. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89494 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 21, 2007 at 12:30 am

04. Comment #89491 by Veronique on November 21, 2007 at 12:19 am

Oh no!!!

330. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89479 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 20, 2007 at 10:58 pm

202. Comment #89476 by PeterK on November 20, 2007 at 10:38 pm
brian--what word/words/phrase are you struggling with?

Oh the words are fine. It's the context.

It seems to me, and I'd like to hear from others on this, that the terms "moron bitch" and "silver spoon", seem especially meaningless when applied to a woman genitally mutiliated at the age of five, having being born into a stone age culture of near sexual servitude from which she escaped, starting her life in Holland as cleaning lady. From this modest platform she gets a university degree, becomes a member of parliament and writes an acclaimed book becoming named one of the worlds 100 most influential people in the process. All in about a decade.

We need more morons like this! ;-)

It strikes me Peter that these epithets would in fact, (with the possible exception of bitch ... although somewhat unisex these days) be a better fit for you or me. Professionally, intellectually and on the front of sheer guts, she has certainly eclipsed me. I don't know enough about you to say for certain:-)

Now the use of the word "snooty" was interesting. More sinister than merely ignorant, with perhaps a hint of repression and misogyny. I'm extrapolating I know, but bear with me. Perceiving, particularly successful, women in this way is something of a pathology for misogynists.

Hey ... you're not some kind of extremist muslim lurker or something, are you?

331. Frequently Asked Questions about the Ayaan Hirsi Ali Security Trust

Comment #89477 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 20, 2007 at 10:39 pm

Now that, was how to do it:-) Thanks Sam.

11. Comment #89473 by kaiser on November 20, 2007 at 10:22 pm
I would strongly suggest that you have a paypal option so a lot more people can donate (sending in checks will turn a lot of people off).

There is a paypal option.

332. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89475 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 20, 2007 at 10:34 pm

I know definitely that you, O America, will go down. I know definitely that you, O Europe, will go down. I know definitely that you, O Netherlands, will go down. I know definitely that you, O Hirsi Ali, will go down.

... and because some religious nutjob says it, we should "definitely" believe it? I thought that was what we were trying to move away from?

333. Getting Overheated

Comment #89472 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 20, 2007 at 10:10 pm

I attach these remarks to Mr. Fry's reasoning because he made clear in his piece that he expects change to come from the top down while the role of the individual may seldom exceed one of moral vanity in defense of a pet cause. I fail to see how extended, global recession does not pose significant risks as well.

This rather depends on the scale of the action. Besides, humans tend to quickly work around obstacles. Europe is an excellent example. Currently the high oil price is hurting the US but having only a modest effect on the EU. Why? We've had high energy prices for ages due to tax, and have already migrated to more cost efficient alternatives. Thus the increase represents a smaller proportion of the overall cost. It's also why we use 50% per capita of the energy in use in the US.

If the oil price hits $150 a barrel the US will start to have real problems, while we will merely be annoyed.

Sensible, graduated precautions are not going to put the economy into a tailspin, however waiting until the last possible minute to take action on something which is self evident and inevitable, almost certainly will.

The oil is running out, it's change gradually now or .... well you get the picture:-)

334. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89469 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 20, 2007 at 9:50 pm

196. Comment #89453 by PeterK on November 20, 2007 at 7:44 pm

She's a snooty moron bitch who feels she can use that silver spoon she was born with in her mouth and her high school-level of writing ability to somehow rescue her from any unmanageable situation she decides to put herself into.

OK, this is just absurd, and everyone on the thread knows why. If you are going to post something, make some sense.

335. Getting Overheated

Comment #89380 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 20, 2007 at 1:34 pm

Nice. Pascals Wager is actually good for something. Who woulda thunk it.

336. The Scientists Speak

Comment #89379 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 20, 2007 at 1:33 pm

11. Comment #89374 by crazy old man on November 20, 2007 at 1:25 pm
As far as our "pumping" CO2, there is a bit of datum that has always prevented me from making the next step to global warming warrior. I'm grateful for this thread because I've been looking to dispense with any baggage that may preventing me from getting on the right side of what appears to one of the defining issues of our time.

There is a pretty good post by Stephen Fry (here on the Dawkins site) on the subject.

You should also check out this site :
http://www.realclimate.org/

Enjoy:-)

337. The Scientists Speak

Comment #89372 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 20, 2007 at 1:12 pm

I wonder will this convince the nay sayers? Somehow I doubt it:-) We will soon see a steady stream of familiar faces posting the same tired, long refuted, "creation" class arguments we've all seen before.

We can hope there will be fewer of them this time, the steady, relentless stream of contradictory info has got to be wearing some of the more sensible denialists down. I mean they are rationalists right? They've got to accept mountains of mutually supporting evidence. Right?

Good work scientists!!! We might get out of this unscathed, but it won't be because of prayer, and it will be in spite of the best efforts of the american republican party to bury us knee deep in CO2, depleted uranium and tele-evangelists:-)

338. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89251 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 20, 2007 at 5:42 am

I have a great deal of respect for Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins et al and maybe their high profiles could be used to ask the Islamic faith to step up to the plate and put its money where its (supposedly moderate and peace-loving) mouth is.

That is an inspired idea!!! Suggest it to the admins. I think that is serious runner.

339. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89204 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 20, 2007 at 2:29 am

We seem to be reaching some sort of consensus. Maybe:-)

When I was a theist, and as my perspective widened and became more inclusive, I came to the conclusion that any religious group claiming some kind of absolute certainty about their moral, biblical or ethical claims was suspect.

Now that I am an atheist (a 5.92 on the Dawkins scale), I am even more suspicious of such claims from either religious or secular quarters.

We (chimps minus half a chromosome) are making this stuff up as we go along, anyone who tells you they KNOW is either not thinking clearly, naive or cynically trying to manipulate you.

Schemeing Machavellian appeals to our emotions are not limited to televangelists, and naive credulity is not limited to the religious.

I personally am confident that this particular appeal is above board, worthy and should be supported. I just don't hold with it being presented as a self evident moral imperative, that is (almost certainly:-)) dangerous nonsense.

340. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89183 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 20, 2007 at 12:36 am

And Brian, you disgust me. You humans, who regard themselves male first, can flounder about being unemotional, but I am outta here.

No please, don't take it that way. I'm merely pointing out the objective reality of our motivations. Men are motivated at some level by a pretty face, it's surely better to know this and try and compensate for it, than to simply ignore it?

I've examined my motivations, and I think my choice to donate is unrelated to attraction, or emotional responses. But who can be certain about that?!

We are of course first human, I absolutely know and endorse this perspective, and I totally regret having offended you. I genuinely wish I could undo that:-(

341. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89179 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 19, 2007 at 11:54 pm

... idea that a whole group of people can decide they have the right to kill you because they don't like that you have left the the religion that you got accidentally born into really barbaric.

Totally with you! However this is more of an emotional argument than a purely rational one. It is a horrible injustice, but as you note she is not the only one suffering it. The question for me, when I divest myself as fully as possible from the emotional response is this.

What would be the impact on secular progress if she were killed? I think it would be a disaster. If the west cannot protect such a high profile, articulate and passionate expression of freedom, why should anyone turn to us? Why should anyone take the risk?

Why does everyone think she is wealthy ? I can't see the books bringing in that much money.

Perhaps wealth is overstating the case. I know next to nothing about her finances. However, she is a succesful author, a speaker in some demand and with ready access to the very, very rich. I infer from this that she is unlikely to want for material comforts, however the security bill is a massive additional overhead.

My point was simply a cold calculation. What are we getting for our money here? As it happens, I think it's an investment in secularism that will pay off.

342. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89169 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 19, 2007 at 11:15 pm

So if she was ugly
I'm certain it would influence me on some level. I'm certain it motivates every heterosexual male at some level.

It's obviously hard to quantify, and I like to consider all my decisions entirely objective and rational, but I know it's just not true. Do you think yours are?

As regards her effectivness, this is surely the pivot on which the whole argument turns? If she is not a beacon of truth and hope for oppressed women, how is she any different from the millions of outspoken women at risk everywhere? Why should she be singled out and protected at enormous cost? Given her obvious success and wealth, couldn't funds be more productively employed elsewhere?

I happen to think she is a beacon. I personally find her example inspirational, but I might be wrong. For example, a statistically sound poll of women generally may find that they think she's a mouthy bitch who is denigrating Islam, and that they embrace Islam more fervently as a result, or that they are simply unmoved, or none of them have ever heard of her. I think these results unlikely, but we don't really know.

Hence some of the moral certainty on display needs slapping. Moral certainty, to be blunt is dangerous. Every single lunatic responsible for millions of deaths had "moral certainty", including the atheists.

All of them talked (or talk!) about honour, justice and truth as if whatever ideology they happened to be peddling had absolute certainty about these issues.

We need to watch it, just like every other "not quite a chimp, but still prone to bouts of irrational slaughter" primate on the planet.

343. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89161 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 19, 2007 at 11:00 pm

131. Comment #89138 by lesa on November 19, 2007 at 8:24 pm
Ayaan shouldn't have to pay for her right not to be murdered. I will proudly donate.

I absolutely agree with you.

And I agree with the previously posted opinion -- Help if you can, shut up if you can't or don't want to.

Here however, we must part company. There is a detailed case to be made against donating. There is the issue of returning to the Netherlands, the problem of the viability and practicality of providing round the clock bodyguards for anyone threatened directly and the perfectly legitimate questions about her actual efficacy as a representative in the Muslim world given her decade's long residency in various states in the west.

I personally don't find the case (against) that compelling, but I haven't researched every inch of the thing, and my decision to donate is partially motivated by emotion. I can see that there is another side, and given time and access to complete information, it's possible I could be convinced to change my mind.

I've simply weighed the risk of giving to a potentially bad cause, against the LOE of further research and opted for giving as providing the best return for what I want, a secular world and the protection of an attractive and courageous woman.

However, to present the option to donate as some kind of moral imperative is obviously, to this ex-theist anyway, a religious position.

For example, how about stumping up cash to protect this woman?
https://therealnews.com/web/index.php?thisdataswitch=0&thisid=602&thisview=item

344. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89058 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 19, 2007 at 3:59 pm

This has absolutely nothing to do with any in-group/out-group mentality, but with civility.

Well maybe. Perhaps you've been a paragon of reasoned debate, I'm not sure I've read all of your posts on this thread. However let me draw your attention to some fairly intemperate remarks.

After reading this thread, I think the largely unwarranted stereotype of tightwad Jew should be accurately re-applied to our atheist fellows. Are we not a bunch a sniveling little pocket pinchers looking for any rational excuse to do nothing with our lives.

Any group on the internet will always attract its share of lice.

I'm all in favour of donating, it strikes me as a very sensible cause. It is merely the outraged sense of violation, of something profaned, that pervades the thread that I find disturbing and, yes, religious for want of a better term.

Just me is it? Oh well.

345. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #89051 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 19, 2007 at 3:27 pm

It has been pretty interesting to watch this little spat.

As a cash stumper upper, I feel pretty comfortable observing that this has been a classic case of ingroup/outgroup behaviour resulting in the demonisation and attempts to repress, an unpalatable minority view point. With a few demagouges (as usual) leading the attack.

Frankly, there may be a little testosterone involved too, perhaps triggered by a need to protect and defend an attractive female? Don't read anything sexist into that, it's just an objective observation. As the great Hitch says, we're just a half a chromosome removed from chimps.

Steve, Goldy, Rtambree am I off base here? Shoot me down if I am, but gently please. I'm just sayin'.

Josh, if you'll forgive the observation, you seem to have allowed yourself to get caught up in the emotional rush somewhat.

346. URGENT APPEAL: Please Help Protect Ayaan Hirsi Ali

Comment #88972 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 19, 2007 at 10:17 am

I sent my contribution but I'm not going to sit on my high hourse and judge people for choosing not to do so. It's their business. This strategy of guilting and silencing people isn't how we should do things. This is one of the things I dislike the most about organised religion: The manipulative overuse of guilt to get people to do what you want.

I have to agree. I have no hesitation in supporting Ayaan, and have gone along and done so. However, the tone of those insisting we "must" help, and how "dare" we question Ayaan's motives, has a distinctly religious and rather familiar feel.

If more theists (including myself when I was one) had asked skeptical and probing questions about what exactly their money was being used for, the fawning deference for religion that is now an absolute must for every American politician, might not have become so inevitable.

Skeptical questions are good, to be welcomed and actively encouraged. As it happens I'm convinced of the case, but others surely have the right to satisfy themselves, to express some doubts and even a little skepticism about an appeal for money, without being subjected to the Spanish Inquisition?

I think we often loose sight of the fact that religion is not the problem. Ideology is the problem, successful ideologies that leverage on the plethora of cognitive weaknesses (now thankfully gradually coming to light) in the human brain.

Atheists are just as likely to fall prey to these mental blind spots as any theist, and the only defense is relentless skepticism. If there is one attitude that we should prize above all others, that's it.

347. The Transcendental Argument for God

Comment #88965 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 19, 2007 at 9:49 am

479. Comment #88947 by Dianelos Georgoudis on November 19, 2007 at 8:39 am

Actually I reject the observation that this thread keeps repeating the same.

Well you appear to be pretty isolated on that front.

I refer you to Steve's comment

A God we can't know, but is good (how do we know?) somehow responsible for objective ethics and stuff (how?); objective ethics we can't know, but we sort of have to guess at (which is no help at all - as I have said before, the existence of a map is no use if you don't have it to hand), and the idea that God is a vast Mind, when we know that whatever the substrate, minds are hugely complex.

The question is repeatedly asked because you have failed to demonstrate explanatory power, lack of paradox and simplicity. At least not as we use those words.

Let me put it this way.

You live in a kind of philosophical flatland. From this limited perspective you think that you're making sense, progress and major "breakthroughs". However from our 3D perspective, we can clearly see you're simply looping endlessly around the same basic themes.

However, I've already said more than I intended. Leave these good people alone.

348. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #88964 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 19, 2007 at 9:32 am

Maybe I got the wrong end of the stick about your views because I also can't see any way to protect buses and trains etc. And of course, once you've secured them then you have to secure shopping centres and a thousand other places. I simply found it daft that you claimed that because you had never been blown up on a London bus, there was really no need to worry. I think there is. In fact 7/7 proved it so.


Let me stick my oar in the water here. Identity cards? No problem. I live in Sweden and everyone is numbered at birth. As a result, my wife can get a passport in about a week simply by picking up the phone. She literally called the police station, ordered a new passport and picked it up a week later. It may be more complicated now, that was mid 90's.

So frankly I'm a fan of numbered populations, I think an ID card was one of the first things I got when we moved here:-)

As regards, not worrying about public transport. There I'd have to agree too!!! How likely is it that you'll be the one that "gets it"? Vanishingly small. By obsessing about it, you produce the exact kind of reaction these dolts are hoping for. I say leave it to the security services and give it as much thought as you would being struck by a meteor.

349. Richard Dawkins at AAI 07

Comment #88760 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 19, 2007 at 12:19 am

544. Comment #88653 by krisking on November 18, 2007 at 10:11 am
briancoughlanworldcitizen

Don't be obtuse. It's clear to everyone that the underlying reasons for WWII are multi faceted and complex.

However, the primary lever to motivate the German people to co-operate was inextricably grounded in religion.

Jew hating? A massive personality cult? Nordic pagan rites? C'mon.:-)

Absent it, could they have been convinced to go along with Hitler? As I noted, possibly. However, to discount the centrality of religions malevolent influence is what is facile.

350. The joining of church and state

Comment #88602 by briancoughlanworldcitizen on November 18, 2007 at 2:39 am

3. Comment #88599 by elfstoned on November 18, 2007 at 2:31 am
I read somewhere that Robertson is supporting Giuliani because he believes it will hasten the Apocalypse.

DUDE!!!! That was a spoof article! This is a clear thinking oasis remember? Lets not post crazy shit, not even about religious nut jobs, without making sure it's true.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-borowitz/pat-robertson-says-giulia_b_71744.html

Roberstson is a cynical old fart, thats what this clearly indicates. So no surprise there then.